MAHARASHTRA FEEDS P. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

reassessment or re-computation exceeds the tax on the total income determined under sub-section (1) of section 143 or on the basis of the regular assessment aforesaid. (4

MOTHERSON SUMI SYSTEMS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2010-11

reassessment year 1998-99, where it has declined the benefit to the assessee cannot be found fault with. But there is change in the law for the assessment year 2001-02. Section 10(B)(1) and (4

CIT vs. TEI TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

4) is also with reference to the undertaking. A business might have several undertakings and section 28 does not envisage computation of income of each such undertaking. In other words, the profits of the business of the undertaking cannot be computed in isolation. The profits are computed under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession", as under

CIT vs. TEI TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

4) is also with reference to the undertaking. A business might have several undertakings and section 28 does not envisage computation of income of each such undertaking. In other words, the profits of the business of the undertaking cannot be computed in isolation. The profits are computed under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession", as under

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI vs. KUBER KHADYAN PVT. LTD., NEW DLEHI

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 132(4) of the Act of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by this Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (Supra).” 11 ITA No.4223/Del./2018; 4225/Del./2018 & 4226/Del./20118 5.8 In view of the detailed observation, the Ld. CIT(A) concluded that in the case, no incriminating material was found during the course

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI vs. KUBER KHADYAN PVT. LTD., NEW DLEHI

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 132(4) of the Act of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by this Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (Supra).” 11 ITA No.4223/Del./2018; 4225/Del./2018 & 4226/Del./20118 5.8 In view of the detailed observation, the Ld. CIT(A) concluded that in the case, no incriminating material was found during the course

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. LD. ITO, WARD 35(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2021-22] Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Income Tax Officer, Ward-35(1), B-2/38, Ground Floor, E-2, Civic Centre, Delhi-110002 Ashok Vihar, Phase-Ii, Vs Delhi-110052 Pan-Aafhr8657H Appellant Respondent

4) shall be final. (6) No appeal under [Section 246] or Section 246A or an application for revision under Section 264 shall be admissible against the order of assessment or reassessment

M/S RELIGARE CAPITAL MARKETS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

reassessments and it is/was never confined only to the orders passed pursuant to the determination of the ALP by the TPO. Then the course open was either to insert a sunset clause in this regard in section 153 itself or add a non-obstante clause in section 144C(4

RELIGARE CAPITAL MARKETS LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

reassessments and it is/was never confined only to the orders passed pursuant to the determination of the ALP by the TPO. Then the course open was either to insert a sunset clause in this regard in section 153 itself or add a non-obstante clause in section 144C(4

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HLS ASIA LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

reassessment proceedings had claimed the benefit of weighted deduction in respect of warehouse charges on the basis of Section 35B(1)(b)(ix) read with Rule 6AA. The point remains that the head of expenditure on account of which the weighted deduction is claimed by the applicant-company is "warehouse charges". The apex court in CIT v. Assam Frontier

HLS ASIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

reassessment proceedings had claimed the benefit of weighted deduction in respect of warehouse charges on the basis of Section 35B(1)(b)(ix) read with Rule 6AA. The point remains that the head of expenditure on account of which the weighted deduction is claimed by the applicant-company is "warehouse charges". The apex court in CIT v. Assam Frontier

HLS ASIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

reassessment proceedings had claimed the benefit of weighted deduction in respect of warehouse charges on the basis of Section 35B(1)(b)(ix) read with Rule 6AA. The point remains that the head of expenditure on account of which the weighted deduction is claimed by the applicant-company is "warehouse charges". The apex court in CIT v. Assam Frontier

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HLS ASIA LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

reassessment proceedings had claimed the benefit of weighted deduction in respect of warehouse charges on the basis of Section 35B(1)(b)(ix) read with Rule 6AA. The point remains that the head of expenditure on account of which the weighted deduction is claimed by the applicant-company is "warehouse charges". The apex court in CIT v. Assam Frontier

HLS ASIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. CIT- IV, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

reassessment proceedings had claimed the benefit of weighted deduction in respect of warehouse charges on the basis of Section 35B(1)(b)(ix) read with Rule 6AA. The point remains that the head of expenditure on account of which the weighted deduction is claimed by the applicant-company is "warehouse charges". The apex court in CIT v. Assam Frontier

M/S. HLS ASIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

reassessment proceedings had claimed the benefit of weighted deduction in respect of warehouse charges on the basis of Section 35B(1)(b)(ix) read with Rule 6AA. The point remains that the head of expenditure on account of which the weighted deduction is claimed by the applicant-company is "warehouse charges". The apex court in CIT v. Assam Frontier

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HLS ASIA LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

reassessment proceedings had claimed the benefit of weighted deduction in respect of warehouse charges on the basis of Section 35B(1)(b)(ix) read with Rule 6AA. The point remains that the head of expenditure on account of which the weighted deduction is claimed by the applicant-company is "warehouse charges". The apex court in CIT v. Assam Frontier

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30 , NEW DELHI vs. SANJIVANI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usacit Vs. Sanjivani Industries Pvt. Central Circle -30 Ltd. New Delhi 1/8, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi – 110 008 Pan No. Aafcs 8669 H (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassess total income u/s 153A is restricted to the material found during search. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Singhad Technical Education Society when the facts and circumstances of the instant case

SEEMA GOEL,DELHI vs. CIT A, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

4. Erroneous Levy of Interest Under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C o The AO erred in charging interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act without considering that the addition was disputed and not part of the original return. 5. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings Under Section 271(1)(c) is Premature o The initiation of penalty

SEEMA GOEL,DELHI vs. CIT A, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

4. Erroneous Levy of Interest Under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C o The AO erred in charging interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act without considering that the addition was disputed and not part of the original return. 5. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings Under Section 271(1)(c) is Premature o The initiation of penalty